Roads go 6.62 BILLION over budget

by MG Thu Feb 20, 2003 17:03

The same goes for Labour, though they have been pretty quiet lately.

BTW, I'm not entirely opposed to the publishing of press releases on indymedia, I'd just prefer if people like the Greens didn't publish every press release here. Maybe they could be added as comments when there is already a story on the newswire about the issue at hand.

Does anyone else agree, or should I just grin and bear it???

by Graham - GP Thu Feb 20, 2003 17:13

I'm not publishing every press release though - just the ones I think might be relevant to the Indymedia audience.

Perhaps the idea of a seperate press release wire should be discussed further.

The thing is, the political parties DO uncover real and important info that wouldn't get out otherwise (like the extra 6.6 billion).

by Daithi - 1 of IMC IE Thu Feb 20, 2003 17:15

What I've said when this discussion comes up on the mailing lists before is that we shouldn't do anything until it becomes a problem - and then email the poster or add a comment with a specific restriction. What would you consider too many in order to trigger that sort of a request?

My opinion is that more than one or two a day over a number of days would demand a polite little note - before that, though, I think it would be a bit much for editors to leave up the rest of the cut and paste jobs, as we do at the moment, but come down hard on press releases (also, I think it can be useful for this sort of stuff to be direct from the horse's mouth, so to speak, rather than pasting in an RTE piece that badly paraphrases the press release. It empowers readers when they see what the rest of the journalists see. But that freedom can be abused).

We did say to Labour before, when releases were coming direct from the press office, to add the second or subsequent release on a particular day as a comment - or else we would do so by moving them. Personally I don't think we need to do that with the Green releases as the moment, in particular because Graham is the only person posting them.

by MG Thu Feb 20, 2003 17:38

However, I disagree with your view that "it can be useful for this sort of stuff to be direct from the horse's mouth".

Political press releases are the means each party uses to get their one-sided arguments across to the public. By their very nature, press releases are designed to bolster support for the party issuing them. It's a journalist's job to decide what is newsworthy and what is just plain electioneering. A journalist should also look for the other side of the story, in order to present a balanced argument.

I took a 12-week module in PR when I was in college and we were, very simply, taught to lie, distort the truth, use euphemisms, engage in damage limitation and always adopt a one-sided position. If indymedia is committed to "passionate tellings of truth", then is should discourage this kind of thing.

That said, I happen to agree with most of what the Green Party say, including their views on the above scandal about spending on roads. This is not an attack on the Greens. I simply want to point out that press releases are not journalism and, in an ideal world, they would not be posted on a site committed to accurate journalism.

by Daithi Thu Feb 20, 2003 17:51

Point taken, MG. I agree that press releases are not journalism at all - although for the more decent of folks (Carrickminders, for example), the press release is probably closer to the truth than the interpretation in certain publications. Thing is, like you said, it's not because of the content that there's a problem, it's the format - so we can't have "nice press releases" and "bad press releases".

"taught to lie, distort the truth, use euphemisms, engage in damage limitation and always adopt a one-sided position."

Sounds like my whole degree..... ;-)

by MG Thu Feb 20, 2003 18:39

Your entire degree! I did a 12-week course as part of a journalism degree and that was bad enough for me. We had one set of lecturers teaching us that our one and only loyalty should be to the truth, while the others taught us how to spin like Willie's doktors (thanks for the term, Eamonn)...

Anyway, I wasn't calling for all press releases to be deleted, because some of them are actually interesting and informative. I just noticed that Graham had posted two so far today and thought that might be a little bit over the top.

Imagine if YFG and FF and the PDs started targeting us pinko lefties on indymedia with a barrage of pro-market PR. It would ruin the website. Labour and the Greens haven't really abused the newswire (yet), but it's better to raise objections now before we become a press office for the so-called left-wing parties.

by Graham - GP Thu Feb 20, 2003 23:45

You don't see discussions on press releases like this in the mainstream media - although a third of their 'news' is a result of them.

As someone who is both on the recieving and pushing end of press releases, I think that the full publication of releases is important - for FF, FG and everybody else. If you can read the actual release then when you see the resulting story on the RTE news or in the Indo you tend to percieve it in a more realistic light.

It's healthy to see the releases that the 'stories' come from, IMHO.

However, I am very sensitive to degredation of the newswire - so if anybody has any suggestions....

by C. Fri Feb 21, 2003 10:25

If we were to say that press releases should be prefaced by a couple of paragraphs stating the reason for posting to Indymedia (relevance to campaigns, other media take up) this might help.

It would change the tone, mean that original content would be included and get someone to stand over a statement if any comments came in. Otherwise the press releases are available elsewhere.